Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Juvenile 'Delinquency'

Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 12:12:05 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
I made a poll about this subject some time ago and was suprised at how many people on DDO agreed with me on this topic. Only one of ten voters supported the modern conception that young children who commit crimes should be treated as delinquits rather than criminals. This is a lot less than I expected from a site like DDO, so I decided to make this thread to further explore how the DDO community feels about this topic (there is only so much that can be communicated in a poll vote, after all.)

So anyway, I am an advocate of treating child criminals as criminals, as opposed to many governments having a policy of treating them like delinquits except in the case of major crimes such as murder. With other less serious crimes such as theft, trespassing, assult, vandalism, drug infractions, and harrassment (just to name a few examples) the punishment for adult criminals is almost always more severe than the punishment for a similar crime commited by a child criminal, all else being equal.

Why should a criminal be given a lesser punishment just because of their age? A persons brain is still developing until around ages 22-26, so when deciding how to deal with underaged criminals we should keep in mind that we will be giving a lesson to their still developing brains that will stay with them for the rest of their lives. If the choice we make is the choice of giving them a lesser punishment than their crimes warrant then we are teaching their still developing brains that their actions do not have consequences.

Now more than ever, with society slowly moving away from the idea of parents using corporal punishment to enforce proper behavior in their children, the government shouldn't be choosing to instill those sorts of lessons in the vulnerable minds of our youth.

It doesn't take an expert to say what comes next. If the government refuses to teach children acceptable behavior in terms they can understand, and their parents are unwilling to do so...

'Juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty.' But duty is an adult virtue"indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 12:49:13 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 12:12:05 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
I made a poll about this subject some time ago and was suprised at how many people on DDO agreed with me on this topic. Only one of ten voters supported the modern conception that young children who commit crimes should be treated as delinquits rather than criminals. This is a lot less than I expected from a site like DDO, so I decided to make this thread to further explore how the DDO community feels about this topic (there is only so much that can be communicated in a poll vote, after all.)

So anyway, I am an advocate of treating child criminals as criminals, as opposed to many governments having a policy of treating them like delinquits except in the case of major crimes such as murder. With other less serious crimes such as theft, trespassing, assult, vandalism, drug infractions, and harrassment (just to name a few examples) the punishment for adult criminals is almost always more severe than the punishment for a similar crime commited by a child criminal, all else being equal.

Why should a criminal be given a lesser punishment just because of their age? A persons brain is still developing until around ages 22-26, so when deciding how to deal with underaged criminals we should keep in mind that we will be giving a lesson to their still developing brains that will stay with them for the rest of their lives. If the choice we make is the choice of giving them a lesser punishment than their crimes warrant then we are teaching their still developing brains that their actions do not have consequences.

Now more than ever, with society slowly moving away from the idea of parents using corporal punishment to enforce proper behavior in their children, the government shouldn't be choosing to instill those sorts of lessons in the vulnerable minds of our youth.

It doesn't take an expert to say what comes next. If the government refuses to teach children acceptable behavior in terms they can understand, and their parents are unwilling to do so...

'Juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty.' But duty is an adult virtue"indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with.

If we are to treat juvenile miscreants in the same way that we treat adult offenders are we to extend to the young the same rights that adults have?
Do we allow them to drink alcohol, have sex, drive cars, sign contracts, join the military etc. etc? If not, why not?
AlyceTheElectrician
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 1:54:44 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
I'm not completely sold on this idea

My first thought is: sure it could be a great deterrent, but what if it isn't?

And what about the experiential equity of a child? Stupid teenagers often get a pass because they are in the process of earning their wisdom via a lot of epic fails to include "petty crimes" like selling and smoking joints.
Be who you are, Say what you feel, Because those who mind don"t matter, And those who matter don't mind.

BANGTAN! Blood, Sweat, & Tears> Check it out yes! https://www.youtube.com...
foxxhajti
Posts: 479
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 2:27:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
My main worry is that they'd be able to ruin their entire life based on a futile decision they might've taken. I think it's fair that they get the punishments they deserve after all though. We can't just treat their offenses as lesser based on their age. Anyways, in conclusion, I have mixed feelings about this, but I'm more in favour of it than not.
"It's interesting to observe that almost all truly worthy men have simple manners, and that simple manners are almost always taken as a sign of little worth" - Giacomo Leopardi

"It is more honorable to be raised to a throne than to be born to one. Fortune bestows the one, merit obtains the other." - Francesco Petrarca

"You too must not count too much on your reality as you feel it today, since like yesterday, it may prove an illusion for you tomorrow." - Luigi Pirandello
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 2:45:30 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 12:49:13 PM, desmac wrote:
If we are to treat juvenile miscreants in the same way that we treat adult offenders are we to extend to the young the same rights that adults have?

It depends on the situation, and comes down to my personal beliefs on each situation, but in general no I do not think that holding juveniles to the same standard as adults (a rather low standard by the way, all I ask is that they don't become criminals) entitles them to the same rights as adults.

With some of your examples (not going to go into details om which because it is irrelevant) I would say that yes underaged persons should be so permitted, but in none would I say they deserve those rights just because I think they should be held to the same standards as adults in the eyes of the law.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 2:54:57 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 1:54:44 PM, AlyceTheElectrician wrote:
I'm not completely sold on this idea

My first thought is: sure it could be a great deterrent, but what if it isn't?

What? Punishing criminals as a deterrent to crime? I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here.

And what about the experiential equity of a child? Stupid teenagers often get a pass because they are in the process of earning their wisdom via a lot of epic fails to include "petty crimes" like selling and smoking joints.

If these actions are not treated like crimes by the law just because the perpetrators are below a certain age, how are they supposed to learn that society considers said crimes to be unacceptable?

In other words if they commit a theft (for example) and get caught then let off with a warning and no punishment whatsoever, then what part of that experience helps them 'earn wisdom' as you put it?
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
AlyceTheElectrician
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 3:48:25 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 2:54:57 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/21/2016 1:54:44 PM, AlyceTheElectrician wrote:
I'm not completely sold on this idea

My first thought is: sure it could be a great deterrent, but what if it isn't?

What? Punishing criminals as a deterrent to crime? I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here.

As in a deterrent for children to refrain from committing known crimes if the are made aware of the dire consequences.

And what about the experiential equity of a child? Stupid teenagers often get a pass because they are in the process of earning their wisdom via a lot of epic fails to include "petty crimes" like selling and smoking joints.

If these actions are not treated like crimes by the law just because the perpetrators are below a certain age, how are they supposed to learn that society considers said crimes to be unacceptable?

In other words if they commit a theft (for example) and get caught then let off with a warning and no punishment whatsoever, then what part of that experience helps them 'earn wisdom' as you put it?

well, by giving a child a second chance so to allow them to correct themselves.
Be who you are, Say what you feel, Because those who mind don"t matter, And those who matter don't mind.

BANGTAN! Blood, Sweat, & Tears> Check it out yes! https://www.youtube.com...
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 4:07:59 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 12:12:05 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
[...] If the government refuses to teach children acceptable behavior in terms they can understand, and their parents are unwilling to do so...
Wait a second. You're supposed to be a libertarian, which means the role of government is to be taken out of the picture. Having the government "teach manners" is the ultra-conservative normative approach.

I seriously wonder what you think libertarian means. Honestly.
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 4:20:15 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
The alt-right (https://en.wikipedia.org...) cannot and should not be confused with libertarianism (http://www.libertarianism.org...).

It's bizarre to see so many on this forum declare themselves "libertarians" while they, in effect, prance around and spew garbage in the manner of white supremacists and/or neo-reactionaries.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 5:03:49 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 4:20:15 PM, NHN wrote:
The alt-right (https://en.wikipedia.org...) cannot and should not be confused with libertarianism (http://www.libertarianism.org...).

It's bizarre to see so many on this forum declare themselves "libertarians" while they, in effect, prance around and spew garbage in the manner of white supremacists and/or neo-reactionaries.

From your link:

"The alt-right has been described as a movement unified by support for Republican Presidential candidate Donald Trump

The alt-right has no official ideology, but various sources have associated it with white nationalism, white supremacism, antisemitism, right-wing populism, nativism, and the neoreactionary movement."

So you think - based on this thread OP - that I am a Donald Trump supporter, a racist, and a reactionary. Consider my gag reflex officially triggered.

Getting back on topic though, what part of libertarianism requires a person to believe that criminals should be given lesser punishments just because they are below a certain age?
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 5:12:21 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 3:48:25 PM, AlyceTheElectrician wrote:
At 8/21/2016 2:54:57 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
In other words if they commit a theft (for example) and get caught then let off with a warning and no punishment whatsoever, then what part of that experience helps them 'earn wisdom' as you put it?

well, by giving a child a second chance so to allow them to correct themselves.

Okay, but they will not correct themselves if they never learn that what they are doing is unacceptable in the first place, if they are let off with minimal or no punishment all they learn is that they can be caught red-handed and still get away with whatever they are doing.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 5:21:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 5:03:49 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
[...] what part of libertarianism requires a person to believe that criminals should be given lesser punishments just because they are below a certain age?
First off, as a paternalist you allow the state to maintain a "concept of the citizen" which runs counter to the ideal of individual self-determination.

Moreover, there is something called the age of majority established in every civilized nation. As juveniles are not full citizens, the ramifications for irresponsible behavior cannot and should not on par with adults who enjoy full liberties. Only a reactionary would place twelve-year-old kids and thirty-year-old adults side by side in the criminal justice system.

It is one thing to argue that the age should be set at 13, 15 or 18, but to argue a complete nullification of the age of majority--a rejection of a basic principle of the rule of law--would put American jurisprudence on a path to the Middle Ages.

And if you seriously feel the gag reflexes of the Trump crowd, just look at the alt-right people who support you in this argument.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 7:11:13 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 5:21:19 PM, NHN wrote:
At 8/21/2016 5:03:49 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
[...] what part of libertarianism requires a person to believe that criminals should be given lesser punishments just because they are below a certain age?
First off, as a paternalist you allow the state to maintain a "concept of the citizen" which runs counter to the ideal of individual self-determination.

Not exempting people from the law just because of their age is called paternalism now? Silly me, I thought that was called the rule of law. Thanks for correcting me on that.

Moreover, there is something called the age of majority established in every civilized nation. As juveniles are not full citizens, the ramifications for irresponsible behavior cannot and should not on par with adults who enjoy full liberties.

Oh really? And why the hell not?

Only a reactionary would place twelve-year-old kids and thirty-year-old adults side by side in the criminal justice system.

No no really, besides it being something that someone you don't like would be in favor of why should underaged criminals not be treated like criminals?

It is one thing to argue that the age should be set at 13, 15 or 18, but to argue a complete nullification of the age of majority--a rejection of a basic principle of the rule of law--would put American jurisprudence on a path to the Middle Ages.

And if you seriously feel the gag reflexes of the Trump crowd, just look at the alt-right people who support you in this argument.

I never heard the term alt-right before you brought it up but there is not the least bit of a hint of anything in that link you gave that would suggest that they would - as a group ideology - have any opinion at all on the subject of whether a young criminal should be punished as a criminal. More importantly I don't see how it would be remotely relevant even if they did.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2016 7:38:47 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 12:12:05 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Now more than ever, with society slowly moving away from the idea of parents using corporal punishment to enforce proper behavior in their children, the government shouldn't be choosing to instill those sorts of lessons in the vulnerable minds of our youth.

In an ideal world, parents would do their duty of raising their children properly by themselves, perhaps most importantly instilling in them a sense of right and wrong and a willingness to do right. But if a child gets so out of hand that they become a criminal, their parents are clearly either unable (whether or not through fault of their own is irrelevant) or unwilling to do so, therefore the job of dealing with the resulting criminal behavior is left to society to deal with because nobody else will.

Yes, I see how this is an anti-libertarian philosophy now. I guess I may as well start attending KKK rallies now since, as NHN so logically pointed out, this belief of mine clearly makes me "an anti-semetic white nationalist supporter of nativism"
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 10:38:10 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 7:11:13 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Not exempting people from the law just because of their age is called paternalism now? Silly me, I thought that was called the rule of law. Thanks for correcting me on that.
No. You stated above that it was the duty of government to instill values. That's paternalism. A big word. Soon enough you'll know concepts like age of majority as well.

Oh really? And why the hell not?
Children live under the guardianship and rules of adults. This means they're not yet enjoying the free exercise of the rights of liberty and property. Moreover, violation of the law is tied to intent, which reduces the culpability of the intellectually "challenged" and the criminally insane; the same principle is applied to children of immature age.

The distinction between adults and children is also seen in, for instance, the age of consent. Or maybe you think that should be removed as well, just like the age of majority?

I never heard the term alt-right before [...]
Then you learned something. I think you never heard of the term "age of majority" before either, but that doesn't mean it wasn't there all along.

Yes, I see how this is an anti-libertarian philosophy now. I guess I may as well start attending KKK rallies now since, as NHN so logically pointed out, this belief of mine clearly makes me "an anti-semetic white nationalist supporter of nativism"
Eh, no. If you reread the definition you'll see that there is no official ideology but that the alt-right is attached to various racist, fascist and/or reactionary movements. Perhaps, through hard work and dumb luck, you'll one day learn the meaning of "and/or" as well. For example, alt-right garbage can Paul Gottfried is Jewish and simultaneously a promoter of fascism and Nazi ideologue Carl Schmitt. He is also president of the H. L. Mencken Club, where he consorts with white supremacist goofballs Pat Buchanan and Richard Spencer. The variations are endless.

Bottom line, though, is that if it walks and quacks alt-right, it's alt-right. And you're definitely alt-right.
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 12:29:35 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 2:45:30 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
In general no I do not think that holding juveniles to the same standard as adults (a rather low standard by the way, all I ask is that they don't become criminals) entitles them to the same rights as adults. [because I think there should be a distinction between adults and children]

At 8/22/2016 10:38:10 AM, NHN wrote:
You think that should be removed as well, just like [you think we should remove] the age of majority?

At 8/21/2016 7:38:47 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
The government shouldn't be choosing to instill those sorts of lessons in the vulnerable minds of our youth.

At 8/21/2016 12:12:05 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
In an ideal world, parents would do their duty of raising their children properly by themselves, perhaps most importantly instilling in them a sense of right and wrong and a willingness to do right.

At 8/22/2016 10:38:10 AM, NHN wrote:
You stated above that it was the duty of government to instill values.

Not that I don't trust your reading comprehension skills, but I may need a second opinion on some of these statements you've made.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
NHN
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 12:51:26 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 12:29:35 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
Not that I don't trust your reading comprehension skills, but I may need a second opinion on some of these statements you've made.
Consult the facts, perhaps? Learn that states' rights -- contrary to your desires -- override the federal government, and that criminal liability does not disappear due to the simple fact that an individual is not of mature age. At present, 33 states have no minimum age set for criminal charges. North Carolina has the lowest at 7, while Wisconsin has the highest at 10.

But you want to see children sentenced as adults and detained as such. Now that's bat sh*t.
Vaarka
Posts: 7,573
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 1:22:13 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/21/2016 12:12:05 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
I made a poll about this subject some time ago and was suprised at how many people on DDO agreed with me on this topic. Only one of ten voters supported the modern conception that young children who commit crimes should be treated as delinquits rather than criminals. This is a lot less than I expected from a site like DDO, so I decided to make this thread to further explore how the DDO community feels about this topic (there is only so much that can be communicated in a poll vote, after all.)

So anyway, I am an advocate of treating child criminals as criminals, as opposed to many governments having a policy of treating them like delinquits except in the case of major crimes such as murder. With other less serious crimes such as theft, trespassing, assult, vandalism, drug infractions, and harrassment (just to name a few examples) the punishment for adult criminals is almost always more severe than the punishment for a similar crime commited by a child criminal, all else being equal.

Why should a criminal be given a lesser punishment just because of their age? A persons brain is still developing until around ages 22-26, so when deciding how to deal with underaged criminals we should keep in mind that we will be giving a lesson to their still developing brains that will stay with them for the rest of their lives. If the choice we make is the choice of giving them a lesser punishment than their crimes warrant then we are teaching their still developing brains that their actions do not have consequences.

Now more than ever, with society slowly moving away from the idea of parents using corporal punishment to enforce proper behavior in their children, the government shouldn't be choosing to instill those sorts of lessons in the vulnerable minds of our youth.

It doesn't take an expert to say what comes next. If the government refuses to teach children acceptable behavior in terms they can understand, and their parents are unwilling to do so...

'Juvenile delinquent' is a contradiction in terms. 'Delinquent' means 'failing in duty.' But duty is an adult virtue"indeed a juvenile becomes an adult when, and only when, he acquires a knowledge of duty and embraces it as dearer than the self-love he was born with.

What exactly is the punishment of a delinquent versus a criminal?
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 1:37:45 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 1:22:13 PM, Vaarka wrote:
What exactly is the punishment of a delinquent versus a criminal?

Are you asking how I think it should be or how it is in the real world?
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Vaarka
Posts: 7,573
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 2:27:27 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 1:37:45 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/22/2016 1:22:13 PM, Vaarka wrote:
What exactly is the punishment of a delinquent versus a criminal?

Are you asking how I think it should be or how it is in the real world?

How it currently is. What is the difference between punishments for delinquents and criminals?
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 3:37:39 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 2:27:27 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 8/22/2016 1:37:45 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/22/2016 1:22:13 PM, Vaarka wrote:
What exactly is the punishment of a delinquent versus a criminal?

Are you asking how I think it should be or how it is in the real world?

How it currently is. What is the difference between punishments for delinquents and criminals?

It depends on where you are and what types of crimes you mean. As mentioned earlier the most serious crimes tend to result in the offender being tried as an adult, or at least result in them being given the same penalty an adult criminal of the same type would be given.

In general though, the way it works in the U.S. is that if an underage person commits a crime the justice system will not call them criminals, instead using the term 'delinquent'. What being labeled as a delinquent means in practice is that the juvenile courts have decided you are subject to punishment for crimes that you commit (though the juvenile courts arent allowed to reffer to a juveniles crimes as crimes). In the best cases an underage criminal will be labeled as a delinquent after their first criminal action, but this is not always the case and any crimes that an underage person is caught committing are not punishable in any way unless/until the juvenile courts grant them the label of 'delinquent'.

Even after the juvenile courts decide an underage criminal is subject to being punished for breaking the law the punishments they offer are almost always less than an equal crime done by an older person (again, the greater the crime the more likely an exception is made, but I am speaking in broad terms here). An example of punishments offered to minors for something like petty theft (theft of something valued $500 or less in most states) would be probation for several months (aka a slap on the wrist) whereas an older offender could face up to 60 days jail time and fines of several times the value of whatever was stolen for the same exact theft.

A couple things to note:

- The person above is talking out of their a$$ when they claim that children of age 7-10 have ever been subject to adult criminal sentencing for anything less than the most severe of felonies. Depends on the state, but most people are subject to juvenile court system and therefore exempt from most criminal charges until age 18, while some others set it at 17.

- There is a minimum age to qualify for juvenile courts, which may be what they were thinking of. But juvenile courts do not have any of the authority of a criminal court because they aren't criminal courts. They are civil courts. This is an important distinction, as it means that any sentence awarded by a juvenile court is not a criminal sentence, but instead a decision by a civil court.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Vaarka
Posts: 7,573
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 3:57:19 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 3:37:39 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/22/2016 2:27:27 PM, Vaarka wrote:
At 8/22/2016 1:37:45 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/22/2016 1:22:13 PM, Vaarka wrote:
What exactly is the punishment of a delinquent versus a criminal?

Are you asking how I think it should be or how it is in the real world?

How it currently is. What is the difference between punishments for delinquents and criminals?

It depends on where you are and what types of crimes you mean. As mentioned earlier the most serious crimes tend to result in the offender being tried as an adult, or at least result in them being given the same penalty an adult criminal of the same type would be given.

In general though, the way it works in the U.S. is that if an underage person commits a crime the justice system will not call them criminals, instead using the term 'delinquent'. What being labeled as a delinquent means in practice is that the juvenile courts have decided you are subject to punishment for crimes that you commit (though the juvenile courts arent allowed to reffer to a juveniles crimes as crimes). In the best cases an underage criminal will be labeled as a delinquent after their first criminal action, but this is not always the case and any crimes that an underage person is caught committing are not punishable in any way unless/until the juvenile courts grant them the label of 'delinquent'.

Even after the juvenile courts decide an underage criminal is subject to being punished for breaking the law the punishments they offer are almost always less than an equal crime done by an older person (again, the greater the crime the more likely an exception is made, but I am speaking in broad terms here). An example of punishments offered to minors for something like petty theft (theft of something valued $500 or less in most states) would be probation for several months (aka a slap on the wrist) whereas an older offender could face up to 60 days jail time and fines of several times the value of whatever was stolen for the same exact theft.

A couple things to note:

- The person above is talking out of their a$$ when they claim that children of age 7-10 have ever been subject to adult criminal sentencing for anything less than the most severe of felonies. Depends on the state, but most people are subject to juvenile court system and therefore exempt from most criminal charges until age 18, while some others set it at 17.

- There is a minimum age to qualify for juvenile courts, which may be what they were thinking of. But juvenile courts do not have any of the authority of a criminal court because they aren't criminal courts. They are civil courts. This is an important distinction, as it means that any sentence awarded by a juvenile court is not a criminal sentence, but instead a decision by a civil court.

Give me an example. In the state of North Carolina (heh), if you were to compare two people for illegally possessing and selling drugs to minors, one being a juvenile sentence and the other being a crime (one was a minor, the other a legal adult), what are the differences.
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 4:26:32 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 3:57:19 PM, Vaarka wrote:
Give me an example. In the state of North Carolina (heh), if you were to compare two people for illegally possessing and selling drugs to minors, one being a juvenile sentence and the other being a crime (one was a minor, the other a legal adult), what are the differences.

Well I gave you the petty theft example, I could give you the sources here (I didnt just make those figures up you know)

Juvenile courts would likely grant probation according to this lawyer answering a persons question on minors guilty of petty theft:

https://www.avvo.com...

Criminal courts would likely grant jail time and fines (60 days was a lower-end estimate as you can see) according to this legal site:

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

For the specific example though you bring up, North Carolina has a lower than average max juvenile age (something I only know because I have lived there for two years now, on and off, and I suspect you already knew based on your 'heh' comment)

As you likely know I don't have an occupation or formal education in law and any examples I give are taken straight off the internet rather than personal knowledge, so you could use the internet for any example you care to come up with in the same way.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Vaarka
Posts: 7,573
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 4:28:28 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 4:26:32 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/22/2016 3:57:19 PM, Vaarka wrote:
Give me an example. In the state of North Carolina (heh), if you were to compare two people for illegally possessing and selling drugs to minors, one being a juvenile sentence and the other being a crime (one was a minor, the other a legal adult), what are the differences.

Well I gave you the petty theft example, I could give you the sources here (I didnt just make those figures up you know)

Juvenile courts would likely grant probation according to this lawyer answering a persons question on minors guilty of petty theft:

https://www.avvo.com...

Criminal courts would likely grant jail time and fines (60 days was a lower-end estimate as you can see) according to this legal site:

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com...

For the specific example though you bring up, North Carolina has a lower than average max juvenile age (something I only know because I have lived there for two years now, on and off, and I suspect you already knew based on your 'heh' comment)

As you likely know I don't have an occupation or formal education in law and any examples I give are taken straight off the internet rather than personal knowledge, so you could use the internet for any example you care to come up with in the same way.

Thanks :3

But if I'm reading it right, a criminal sentence would be like a 10/10 sentence, whereas a juvenile sentence would be more like a 4/10-6/10 sentence?
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 4:35:45 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 4:28:28 PM, Vaarka wrote:
But if I'm reading it right, a criminal sentence would be like a 10/10 sentence, whereas a juvenile sentence would be more like a 4/10-6/10 sentence?

That is a good way of looking at it, when the juvenile courts bother to punish them at all that is (they like to let first time offenders off with 'a warning' when they can, which unlike probation isn't even a slap on the wrist).
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Vaarka
Posts: 7,573
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 4:45:03 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 4:35:45 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/22/2016 4:28:28 PM, Vaarka wrote:
But if I'm reading it right, a criminal sentence would be like a 10/10 sentence, whereas a juvenile sentence would be more like a 4/10-6/10 sentence?

That is a good way of looking at it, when the juvenile courts bother to punish them at all that is (they like to let first time offenders off with 'a warning' when they can, which unlike probation isn't even a slap on the wrist).

Now, I'm a minor, so this may be biased, but I feel like that's a more appropriate sentence/punishment for much younger people, like under 10 or 12. I feel like once you become a teen, you become more independent, and more responsible for your actions, and thus some kind of punishment should take place, especially as they get closer to adulthood. Of course, we need to keep in mind that most of these juveniles are still in school, and probably shouldn't spend 60 days in jail for petty theft... Most kids/teens will get the message after their first offense, even under a smaller punishment, purely because it's court related. I know if I committed some crime and it was brought to court, I'd be scared out of my mind enough to never do it again... but if there are multiple offenses, then the punishment/sentences increase.
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya
Discipulus_Didicit
Posts: 3,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 5:38:29 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 4:45:03 PM, Vaarka wrote:
Now, I'm a minor, so this may be biased, but I feel like that's a more appropriate sentence/punishment for much younger people, like under 10 or 12. I feel like once you become a teen, you become more independent, and more responsible for your actions, and thus some kind of punishment should take place, especially as they get closer to adulthood.

Absolutely. Ironically in my experience talking about this topic in real life it tends to be the younger people like you and I that are more likely to be against giving lighter punishments just because of a persons lesser age. I wonder why that is.

Of course, we need to keep in mind that most of these juveniles are still in school, and probably shouldn't spend 60 days in jail for petty theft...

Be a good learning opportunity though, you can't deny that.

Well, I personally think the idea of imprisonment as punishment is in general an inefficient and outdated method (though still good in some situations, in most I think others would be better), but that's a whole different topic I'd rather not get into in this thread.

Most kids/teens will get the message after their first offense, even under a smaller punishment, purely because it's court related. I know if I committed some crime and it was brought to court, I'd be scared out of my mind enough to never do it again... but if there are multiple offenses, then the punishment/sentences increase.

So I wasn't able to totally convince you? Heh, that's okay. It seems I got the main point across - That some form of punishment involving a court should be given to nip criminal behavior in the bud, so to speak.

Most young people don't exhibit criminal behavior, but those that do should be corrected as soon as possible. If their parents refuse to do so, as is becoming more common these days, then it falls to society to do so.
Cobalt - You could be scum too.
Matt - I suppose. But I also might not be.

Kiri - Yeah, I don't know what DD is doing.
Vaarka - He's doin'a thingy do

DD - The best advice most often goes unheeded.
Wise Man - KYS, DD.
DD - Case in point ^
Vaarka
Posts: 7,573
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 5:57:51 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 5:38:29 PM, Discipulus_Didicit wrote:
At 8/22/2016 4:45:03 PM, Vaarka wrote:
Now, I'm a minor, so this may be biased, but I feel like that's a more appropriate sentence/punishment for much younger people, like under 10 or 12. I feel like once you become a teen, you become more independent, and more responsible for your actions, and thus some kind of punishment should take place, especially as they get closer to adulthood.

Absolutely. Ironically in my experience talking about this topic in real life it tends to be the younger people like you and I that are more likely to be against giving lighter punishments just because of a persons lesser age. I wonder why that is.

Of course, we need to keep in mind that most of these juveniles are still in school, and probably shouldn't spend 60 days in jail for petty theft...

Be a good learning opportunity though, you can't deny that.

Well, I personally think the idea of imprisonment as punishment is in general an inefficient and outdated method (though still good in some situations, in most I think others would be better), but that's a whole different topic I'd rather not get into in this thread.

Most kids/teens will get the message after their first offense, even under a smaller punishment, purely because it's court related. I know if I committed some crime and it was brought to court, I'd be scared out of my mind enough to never do it again... but if there are multiple offenses, then the punishment/sentences increase.

So I wasn't able to totally convince you? Heh, that's okay. It seems I got the main point across - That some form of punishment involving a court should be given to nip criminal behavior in the bud, so to speak.

Most young people don't exhibit criminal behavior, but those that do should be corrected as soon as possible. If their parents refuse to do so, as is becoming more common these days, then it falls to society to do so.

Just because it came to my mind while reading your post, Imma tell a quick story.
Some teen in a nearby town a few years ago threw something (I think on fire) into a sewer, and it led to long reconstruction due to fire damage and a danger to people driving above it. He was about 15 I think, and it happened around Easter. The parents were given some choice in his punishment, and they decided to let him stay in jail for a week or so, which included Easter.
You're probably thinking right now "haha I'm a genius". Well you're not -Valkrin

inferno: "I don't know, are you attracted to women?"
ButterCatX: "No, Vaarka is mine!"

All hail scum Vaarka, wielder of the bastard sword, smiter of nations, destroyer of spiders -VOT

"Vaarka, I've been thinking about this for a long time now," (pulls out small box made of macaroni) "W-will you be my noodle buddy?" -Kirigaya